Re: perf code using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 03:30:46PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:

>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c |    3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.git.orig/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c
> +++ linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c
> @@ -1207,7 +1207,7 @@ static int p4_pmu_schedule_events(struct
>  {
>  	unsigned long used_mask[BITS_TO_LONGS(X86_PMC_IDX_MAX)];
>  	unsigned long escr_mask[BITS_TO_LONGS(P4_ESCR_MSR_TABLE_SIZE)];
> -	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +	int cpu = get_cpu();
>  	struct hw_perf_event *hwc;
>  	struct p4_event_bind *bind;
>  	unsigned int i, thread, num;
> @@ -1267,6 +1267,7 @@ reserve:
>  	}
>  
>  done:
> +	put_cpu();
>  	return num ? -EINVAL : 0;
>  }


ok, this will make the error go away, but what about the semantics of
the case? Does it really matter for the grouping on which cpu we compute
it? That is can we end up with a different group for one cpu as for
another?

Or do we simply need a coherent single cpu to do the computation with?
In which case raw_smp_processor_id() would also suffice.


If we can indeed get a different result depending on which cpu we do the
computation, then things are broken, because it might be a task group
we're building which has to be able to migrate around with the task.

In that case we must compute the maximal group that can be scheduled on
all cpus.

This wasn't at all clear.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/